Why I Sold My Company and Didn't Tell Anyone for a Year(amitgupta.com)
amitgupta.com
Why I Sold My Company and Didn't Tell Anyone for a Year
http://amitgupta.com/something-happened
13 comments
Amit's probability of death http://tumblr.amitgupta.com/post/85539436331/filed-under-tab...
He's at about year 3 which looks a LOT better than the earlier years.
Congrats for making it through the valley of death unscathed. When I finish a massive project I descend into depression for months. I can't move. Then, I come out and am ready to give birth to the next great idea.
Frankly, you landed that plane so gracefully that I'm in awe. You're an inspiration to me.
Frankly, you landed that plane so gracefully that I'm in awe. You're an inspiration to me.
Congrats & Great story ! This level of passion is probably required to start and run a company.
Life has a lot of battles, and you just won one of the biggest. :)
Maybe I missed something in this article, but did the employees know? Or did they essentially get their labor sold off to another boss a year ago and were none the wiser? Can such a thing even be done, legally speaking (maybe if the poster were the sole owner)?
Is it literally true that he didn't tell anyone for a year?
Is it literally true that he didn't tell anyone for a year?
By anyone I meant the general public. Everyone at Photojojo knew as soon as the deal was finalized.
Understood! Sorry, my programmer-brain took those words pretty literally. Great story, by the way, and I've always loved Photojojo (and think companies like e.g. Pinterest have a lot to thank it for in the design department).
> Is it literally true that he didn't tell anyone for a year?
No. From the article: "On June 4th, 2014, the day after the sale, I sat down with each employee, each one a friend, and I told them what happened."
No. From the article: "On June 4th, 2014, the day after the sale, I sat down with each employee, each one a friend, and I told them what happened."
And immediately following that:
> I told them that […] I faced two facts: > First, I had to pack up and leave California […] > Second, I had no backup plan […]
Neither of which is "I have sold the company". A few paragraphs later we see "But I’d kept all this secret."
So if he shared his diagnosis and the lack of backup plan, that is the "all this" that remained secret? The writing didn't seem clear to me on this point.
> I told them that […] I faced two facts: > First, I had to pack up and leave California […] > Second, I had no backup plan […]
Neither of which is "I have sold the company". A few paragraphs later we see "But I’d kept all this secret."
So if he shared his diagnosis and the lack of backup plan, that is the "all this" that remained secret? The writing didn't seem clear to me on this point.
I don't see why not? They are still getting paid according to contract, and can leave at any time.
Peoples' decision to work is about more than just "are you paying me money?"
If my company got sold to e.g. the Family Research Council, I'd like to know that my work is now benefiting an organization I vehemently oppose. Obviously an employment contract might spell out whether I must be privy to such a sale, but I was wondering whether disclosure is compulsory even in the absence of such a guarantee in an employment contract.
If my company got sold to e.g. the Family Research Council, I'd like to know that my work is now benefiting an organization I vehemently oppose. Obviously an employment contract might spell out whether I must be privy to such a sale, but I was wondering whether disclosure is compulsory even in the absence of such a guarantee in an employment contract.
By the same token, do you feel compelled to tell your employer when you are interviewing for other jobs, talking to recruiters, or simply bouncing ideas off friends/potential business partners for a company you may start?
The author has responded and clarified that of course everyone knew as soon as the deal was finalized, so my whole point is moot.
The analogous case is not when you're interviewing for other jobs, but when you have taken one. At that point, yes, I feel compelled to tell my current employer.
If some sort of shareholder vote were necessary to sell, then they'd need to know ahead of time. If not, the sale could happen, but employees should know immediately thereafter. And it sounds like they did!
The analogous case is not when you're interviewing for other jobs, but when you have taken one. At that point, yes, I feel compelled to tell my current employer.
If some sort of shareholder vote were necessary to sell, then they'd need to know ahead of time. If not, the sale could happen, but employees should know immediately thereafter. And it sounds like they did!
What if the company were always owned by the FRC, and you just didn't know? What options would you have other than quitting, once you learned?
What if the owner sold FRC an annuity that paid the all his profits, but didn't sell the company?
Glad to see you alive, battling, and bucketlisting, Amit. As a huge fan of Photojojo (considered applying a few times even), I am happy see that it will be in capable hands that you trust.
Make every second count and leave that shutter wide open. :)
Make every second count and leave that shutter wide open. :)
Great read, thanks for sharing and best of luck with all your future endeavours!
Congrats and thanks for sharing Amit.
Glad you have a bucket list and are ticking off items in there. Hope you have the time to get them completed.
You only have one life. Make it count. Tomorrow may never come. Take care of yourself and your family first. Don't keep important things pending if you can help it. Don't leave home in a bad mood or saying things to your SO that you will regret if you don't get the opportunity to remedy.
Also, try and take life insurance when you are young, healthy and are not assailed by chronic ailments. Your family will appreciate the security that you provide after you are gone.
When we are young, we feel invincible and forget the long range picture.
Sorry to sound morbid.
Peace.
Glad you have a bucket list and are ticking off items in there. Hope you have the time to get them completed.
You only have one life. Make it count. Tomorrow may never come. Take care of yourself and your family first. Don't keep important things pending if you can help it. Don't leave home in a bad mood or saying things to your SO that you will regret if you don't get the opportunity to remedy.
Also, try and take life insurance when you are young, healthy and are not assailed by chronic ailments. Your family will appreciate the security that you provide after you are gone.
When we are young, we feel invincible and forget the long range picture.
Sorry to sound morbid.
Peace.
Your post lacks the motivation to care for the long range picture when the perceived full picture would appear to obviate all that came before it.
Often lately, I have been hearing many people suffering from cancer especially in US. What might be the reason for this? Why are so many people in US affected by cancer?
Lack of pathogens. For example in 2013 ~198 million people had Malaria and ~500k died from it, mostly in Africa.
It's hard to die from cancer when you already died from something else.
It's hard to die from cancer when you already died from something else.
1) People aren't dying of other stuff. Stuff that used to cause massive amounts of death just isn't as likely anymore. Infections are now routinely cured with antibiotics. Vaccines prevent deadly disease. Hygiene and health and safety standards across the board reduce death from other causes dramatically - there has been an increase in laws regarding health and safety in every facet of life.
People are living longer. The older you are the more likely you are to have cancer. It is hypothesized that given enough time everyone develops some kind of cancer even if microscopic (more on that later)
Automobile fatalities (the thing most likely to kill young adults) are down dramatically. This is due to safer cars and a decrease of things like DUIs due to public awareness and a huge increase in prosecution. My grandpa told me in the 70s police would routinely pull him over, see he was drunk, and tell him just to go home. New safety features are required almost every year on automobiles. People take infant car seats very seriously nowadays. When I was a kid as soon as I could sit upright by myself I was out of the car seat.
2)There's not a lot we don't know about cancer still. We know that it is a combination of genes and environment that cause it and there are things you can do to lessen your likelihood of getting it such as not smoking... but overall we haven't done a whole lot to prevent most types of cancer and still have a lot to go in completely understanding it. Which specific genes and which specific environmental factors are still somewhat of a mystery, I mean we know some stuff but still not enough. Some types like cervical cancer are largely (but not completely) preventable with routine pap tests but that's the exception.
3) Increased screening leads to an increase in detection of benign and asymptomatic cancer. This turns people into cancer patients who wouldn't have otherwise been cancer patients without screening. This is kinda a new thing. We used to believe that cancer runs one course - that it started at stage 1 and grew continuously until it spread all over your body and killed you - so catching cancer while it is small and treatable will prevent it from spreading and becoming deadly. We are learning from experience that isn't always the case, some can develop so slowly that there's no way it will cause problems in your lifetime. Take prostate cancer for example - the PSA test is a blood test that was developed to detect asymptomatic prostate cancer. The PSA test is no longer recommended because it lead to an increase in cancer diagnoses but a very modest corresponding decrease in cancer related deaths. That tells us that some men who would be diagnosed with prostate cancer if they had the PSA test wouldn't ever be diagnosed without it. Routine mammograms have detected thousands more very early stage cancer (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ) than ever before. The numbers tell us some of these new diagnoses wouldn't have progressed (and maybe would have regressed). Everything requires treatment though because we don't know which small tumor will become deadly and which one won't. More info on this is here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-g...
>we’ve assumed, he says, that cancers are all like rabbits that you want to catch before they escape the barnyard pen. But some are more like birds—the most aggressive cancers have already taken flight before you can discover them, which is why some people still die from cancer, despite early detection. And lots are more like turtles. They aren’t going anywhere. Removing them won’t make any difference.
>Over the past two decades, we’ve tripled the number of thyroid cancers we detect and remove in the United States, but we haven’t reduced the death rate at all. In South Korea, widespread ultrasound screening has led to a fifteen-fold increase in detection of small thyroid cancers. Thyroid cancer is now the No. 1 cancer diagnosed and treated in that country. But, as Welch points out, the death rate hasn’t dropped one iota there, either. (Meanwhile, the number of people with permanent complications from thyroid surgery has skyrocketed.) It’s all over-diagnosis. We’re just catching turtles.
The other thing is you may just be hearing about it more or it might just be talked about more than it used to be.
People are living longer. The older you are the more likely you are to have cancer. It is hypothesized that given enough time everyone develops some kind of cancer even if microscopic (more on that later)
Automobile fatalities (the thing most likely to kill young adults) are down dramatically. This is due to safer cars and a decrease of things like DUIs due to public awareness and a huge increase in prosecution. My grandpa told me in the 70s police would routinely pull him over, see he was drunk, and tell him just to go home. New safety features are required almost every year on automobiles. People take infant car seats very seriously nowadays. When I was a kid as soon as I could sit upright by myself I was out of the car seat.
2)There's not a lot we don't know about cancer still. We know that it is a combination of genes and environment that cause it and there are things you can do to lessen your likelihood of getting it such as not smoking... but overall we haven't done a whole lot to prevent most types of cancer and still have a lot to go in completely understanding it. Which specific genes and which specific environmental factors are still somewhat of a mystery, I mean we know some stuff but still not enough. Some types like cervical cancer are largely (but not completely) preventable with routine pap tests but that's the exception.
3) Increased screening leads to an increase in detection of benign and asymptomatic cancer. This turns people into cancer patients who wouldn't have otherwise been cancer patients without screening. This is kinda a new thing. We used to believe that cancer runs one course - that it started at stage 1 and grew continuously until it spread all over your body and killed you - so catching cancer while it is small and treatable will prevent it from spreading and becoming deadly. We are learning from experience that isn't always the case, some can develop so slowly that there's no way it will cause problems in your lifetime. Take prostate cancer for example - the PSA test is a blood test that was developed to detect asymptomatic prostate cancer. The PSA test is no longer recommended because it lead to an increase in cancer diagnoses but a very modest corresponding decrease in cancer related deaths. That tells us that some men who would be diagnosed with prostate cancer if they had the PSA test wouldn't ever be diagnosed without it. Routine mammograms have detected thousands more very early stage cancer (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ) than ever before. The numbers tell us some of these new diagnoses wouldn't have progressed (and maybe would have regressed). Everything requires treatment though because we don't know which small tumor will become deadly and which one won't. More info on this is here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-g...
>we’ve assumed, he says, that cancers are all like rabbits that you want to catch before they escape the barnyard pen. But some are more like birds—the most aggressive cancers have already taken flight before you can discover them, which is why some people still die from cancer, despite early detection. And lots are more like turtles. They aren’t going anywhere. Removing them won’t make any difference.
>Over the past two decades, we’ve tripled the number of thyroid cancers we detect and remove in the United States, but we haven’t reduced the death rate at all. In South Korea, widespread ultrasound screening has led to a fifteen-fold increase in detection of small thyroid cancers. Thyroid cancer is now the No. 1 cancer diagnosed and treated in that country. But, as Welch points out, the death rate hasn’t dropped one iota there, either. (Meanwhile, the number of people with permanent complications from thyroid surgery has skyrocketed.) It’s all over-diagnosis. We’re just catching turtles.
The other thing is you may just be hearing about it more or it might just be talked about more than it used to be.
That in line with my long held and unpopular thought that really our bodies are rife with mutated and somewhat broken colonies of cells. The idea that you have a slow build up of mutations which finally runaway once the tumor has gotten large is probably just one scenario and perhaps much less common than people want to believe. Very possible you have a the right mutation in a microscopic colony of abnormal cells, and it'll start metastasizing right away. Other cells, will maybe form non-invasive and often self-limiting tumors.
And yeah, thyroid cancer and prostate cancers are way way over diagnosed and over treated to no positive effect.
And yeah, thyroid cancer and prostate cancers are way way over diagnosed and over treated to no positive effect.
Your third point is really interesting. Personally, I'd love to know if I had cancer one way or another. Even if the advice was "let's watch this, and it may not turn into anything" the mere fact that it is known to exist can make sure my doctor is monitoring everything they can to do their best to get ahead of things if it starts going down a bad path.
I'd rather have the knowledge than not, but I know that doesn't always make sense from a large statistical POV.
Simply knowing you have a certain type of cancer though could also prevent misdiagnosis for other things with similar/related symptoms. Beyond that, if I knew I had a certain type of cancer, you can bet your ass I'd do whatever my doctor recommended to reduce my risk for the future. So it could be a great way to convince people to live a healthier lifestyle (albeit out of fear) which I'd be willing to bet would cause them to live longer potentially than if they had not made lifestyle changes.
I'd rather have the knowledge than not, but I know that doesn't always make sense from a large statistical POV.
Simply knowing you have a certain type of cancer though could also prevent misdiagnosis for other things with similar/related symptoms. Beyond that, if I knew I had a certain type of cancer, you can bet your ass I'd do whatever my doctor recommended to reduce my risk for the future. So it could be a great way to convince people to live a healthier lifestyle (albeit out of fear) which I'd be willing to bet would cause them to live longer potentially than if they had not made lifestyle changes.
You would think you would want to know but that leads to a lot of overtreatment which is not only bad for you personally it is bad for everyone because it raises healthcare costs.
>So it could be a great way to convince people to live a healthier lifestyle (albeit out of fear)
That fear can't be discounted. Anxiety leads people to have symptoms of anxiety - which are very significant from a medical point of view and a quality of life point of view.
Take a look here:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-scr...
>Another doctor wrote about the opposite experience: his patient had insisted on testing. He was diagnosed with low-grade localized cancer, the kind that can be observed without treating. But he couldn’t face living with the knowledge that he was harboring an untreated cancer. He was afraid of surgery and opted for radiation treatment. He developed radiation proctitis and had rectal pain and bleeding for years. He became impotent and lost bladder control. He told his doctor he would rather be dead than live wearing adult diapers.
>Prostate cancer is very common but isn’t always harmful. It is found in 80% of autopsies where the men died of something else. Many more men die with prostate cancer than because of it.
>So it could be a great way to convince people to live a healthier lifestyle (albeit out of fear)
That fear can't be discounted. Anxiety leads people to have symptoms of anxiety - which are very significant from a medical point of view and a quality of life point of view.
Take a look here:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-scr...
>Another doctor wrote about the opposite experience: his patient had insisted on testing. He was diagnosed with low-grade localized cancer, the kind that can be observed without treating. But he couldn’t face living with the knowledge that he was harboring an untreated cancer. He was afraid of surgery and opted for radiation treatment. He developed radiation proctitis and had rectal pain and bleeding for years. He became impotent and lost bladder control. He told his doctor he would rather be dead than live wearing adult diapers.
>Prostate cancer is very common but isn’t always harmful. It is found in 80% of autopsies where the men died of something else. Many more men die with prostate cancer than because of it.
Knowledge is great, but it (usually) comes at a cost. If having the test has a 2% chance of hurting you, and the knowledge gained by the test only has a 1% chance of helping you, it makes sense not to take the test.
[deleted]
Congrats!
Giant font is giant. Is this some kind of style decision I am unaware of. It is hard to read unless the window is maximized. What is mobile experience like?
Giant font is giant. Is this some kind of style decision I am unaware of. It is hard to read unless the window is maximized. What is mobile experience like?
Large typography is trending. Personally I love it because I have a 30inch monitor that sits further back. It's way better for the eyes and just feels more natural.
That's why I use the embedded reader on premii so I didn't notice it until you mentioned the issue and I went to the actual blog page.
mobile is fine, font is ok. - htc one
Congrats, and good read.
Off-topic: referring to the business as "she" comes across as very weird to me. Is this common? I know some women can find that offensive.
Off-topic: referring to the business as "she" comes across as very weird to me. Is this common? I know some women can find that offensive.
re: Gender-specific pronouns for inanimates - English is weird. It sounds right to my ear as "she", but the opposite to others. Historically if a gender is required, male is used, but some find that offensive. On the other hand, certain inanimate objects (countries, vehicles of many kinds) are referred to as "she" simply because of tradition.
My girlfriend is learning a little Hindi right now and she finds it maddening that nouns are gendered male or female seemingly at random. I can tell her which is which, but as far as I know there's no system. Some are just male, some are female.
Anyway, "it" sounded weird in that sentence. I should have just rewritten it. :)
My girlfriend is learning a little Hindi right now and she finds it maddening that nouns are gendered male or female seemingly at random. I can tell her which is which, but as far as I know there's no system. Some are just male, some are female.
Anyway, "it" sounded weird in that sentence. I should have just rewritten it. :)
I grew up in India (admittedly in an English-speaking household), and even today I get my genders mixed up all the time. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Yeah, I tried finding links to go with my comment, but information I found was varied and often contradictory. English is definitely weird. I was just curious what others thought (while hopefully not derailing the comments). "It" sounds way more appropriate to me. Anyway, back to the actual content...
Because it is unnecessary in English, when you refer to something inanimate as male or female it implies you have an emotional attachment.
I refer to my car as 'it', my girlfriend calls it a 'she'. When she parked it into a pole she cried and I shrugged.
I refer to my car as 'it', my girlfriend calls it a 'she'. When she parked it into a pole she cried and I shrugged.
I know some people can find a picture of a kitten offensive. Are there legitimate reasons to feel that way?
It's not uncommon. Women don't have any unique ownership of the term "she."
If you refer to your dog lucy, you might say: she likes that toy.
People sometimes refer to their vehicles as her or she and give them cute names.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/she
2) "used to refer to one regarded as feminine (as by personification) <she was a fine ship>"
If you refer to your dog lucy, you might say: she likes that toy.
People sometimes refer to their vehicles as her or she and give them cute names.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/she
2) "used to refer to one regarded as feminine (as by personification) <she was a fine ship>"
What the fuck?...
The amount of times you refer to the business as 'she' or 'her' is a bit off putting to me.
Spend some time around sailors or classic car restorers. They'll really freak you out.
"she" is also often used when referring to countries, though the only reason for it (and for vehicles) that I've found is tradition. English is strange.
I used a gendered pronoun in the second sentence to create mystery in the lede (if didn't already know it was about a company being sold when you hit the post, you don't mind out until further down) and go back to "it" afterward.
I used a gendered pronoun in the second sentence to create mystery in the lede (if didn't already know it was about a company being sold when you hit the post, you don't mind out until further down) and go back to "it" afterward.
I am neither a sailor nor into classic cars but I refer to all boats and all vehicles (not just ones I own or feel affinity towards) as "she." Always, always, always.
"She's my baby" is a common expression for anything that you value highly - I could totally see someone referring to their company with female pronouns. Feels very natural to my ear.
"She's my baby" is a common expression for anything that you value highly - I could totally see someone referring to their company with female pronouns. Feels very natural to my ear.
Gendered pronouns for objects may be considered normal in those fields, but they are not considered normal in business.
I upvoted GP because I dislike seeing them used to refer to corporations.
I upvoted GP because I dislike seeing them used to refer to corporations.
Good job we don't speak French then.
I don't think the people who found successful startups are the type who agonize over all the possible minutiae that could be percieved as offensive to someone, somewhere.
Objects of devotion are often referred to as if they were women.
"The Sea is a harsh mistress." "He's married to his job."
Does it bother you when people refer to non-children as children? "That boat is his baby."
"The Sea is a harsh mistress." "He's married to his job."
Does it bother you when people refer to non-children as children? "That boat is his baby."
[deleted]
Some languages use pronouns differently. Dutch people sometimes use "he" or "she" when referring to objects even when speaking English, because they are used to doing that in Dutch. So it could be that English is not his first language.
He's hetero and women are the object of his intimate love. It's natural for him to attach female gender to the focal points of his love. In other words, if you respect LGBT rights, you also have to respect hetero rights. Not making a political stance here. Just stating the obvious IMO.
Sounds like the company is the object of his intimate love.
It is. And that kind of obsession can lead to disasters for human relationships. It's very complicated. I'm sure if there was a way to have sex with their startups they would.
> Just stating the obvious IMO.
Well, I wish I could "just state the obvious" in such an articulate and eloquent manner. You have an excellent writing.
Well, I wish I could "just state the obvious" in such an articulate and eloquent manner. You have an excellent writing.
A woman referring to a company as "he" or "him" is just as weird, in my opinion. This isn't a gender issue, it's an anthropomorphizing issue.
Welcome to the English language. Enjoy your stay.
You're in the wrong bubble, fuckedcompany was 15 years ago.
Bravo, sir; bravo. I wish you all the best.
^edit: So I'm not misinterpreted here, by "sustainable company" I mean one whose goal is to grow slowly and profitably on its own, not quickly in hopes of an IPO or acquisition. Those companies have their place, and it's a good place. I just like to hear the other stories too.